Alas, the need to quantify marketing efforts has become a mandate that today exists at most major corporations. CMO teams are consistently measured on their ability to move a brand metric needle or in some cases bottom line. There have been countless articles that have addressed the varying measurement practices, so I won't go too far down this path as it deserves its own blog, but I will raise the reality, that the quantification of marketing efforts has become a norm that drives a fair majority of marketing and advertising decisions; and that we live largely in a "cover-your-ass" world as a result.
Here are 3 reasons why this is a bad thing:
#1 The extinction of going with your gut. When I was younger, I cheered for the Philadelphia 76ers and Larry Bird used to kill my team, thus, forever earning a place on my shit list. As I used to watch Bird light up the scoreboard everytime the Celtics and 76ers played, what I remember hearing about the most was his "feel" for the game, his "court sense" and why these things made him such a good player. Of course these references drove me crazy, but they were fairly accurate. He wasn't the fastest guy on the court, he could hardly jump, but he had such amazing vision and sense of how players would react to his action, that he became one of the greatest players of all time.
Switching gears ever so slightly, when I worked at Hal Riney, I would hear countless stories of Hal breaking the spirit of young creatives by conveying his opinions of their work in a a less than polite manner, but equal to the number of these stories were those that spoke of his natural insight and the ability to act upon it. How Hal could sell a campaign to Ernest Gallo over the course of a cigar session by articulating a feeling he had and how best to bring it to life. These were just stories, but the idea that strong instincts and the ability to go with a feeling and succeed were themes I found truly compelling.
I don't believe its a coincidence that two individuals from such different disciplines were able to rise to the pinnacle of their professions by commonly employing instincts and intuition, nor do I believe these are the only reasons why these individuals succeeded (Larry Bird could shoot the lights out). What I do suggest is that instincts and intuition can be valuable tools, especially as they are honed through experiences to provide a degree of expertise.
What concerns me in this day and age, is that without a series of data supports an idea derived from good judgement, insight and expertise can be quickly dismissed. As individuals look to protect themselves in cya fashion, they increasingly look to the numbers for the defense of their decisions. "What does tracking tell us?", "Where are sales numbers this week?", "How does the campaign compare to norms?" These questions are common in practices that rely too heavily on numbers as rationale for decisions, practices that are widespread and in my opinion quickly undermining the value provided by a gut feeling. Honestly, if numbers really told us everything we needed to know, wouldn't more campaigns be succeeding? Would we be seeing the third Sprint campaign in less than a year? Wouldn't Ford and GM's sales woes be on the mend? In all seriousness, numbers can be helpful guides, but they are not the end all be all.
Which brings me to reason #2, numbers can contradict common sense- There is a great quote that I ran across sometime back that states the mathematician's blunder: "if you tell a mathematician that 3 people are in a room and 5 happen to walk out of that same room, a mathematician will tell you 2 people have to go back in the room for it to be empty." To me, this sums up the approach applied to all too many marketing challenges. A number may say that one campaign will likely peform better than another or that a certain tagline is likely to resonate more favorably among the consumer masses, but its is not a substitute for applying good judgement and common sense.
We may not all have the instincts of Hal Riney, but most of us have a degree of reason inherent to our very nature as humans who live among other humans. When numbers tell us something that contradicts a feeling or instinct, a red flag should go up. But all too often decision makers put their complete faith in a number, a study or a data point. As I mentioned earlier, if numbers were 100% reliable, wouldn't marketers be reaping the kudos for their successes rather than defending their actions.
Which gets us to my next point of concern (#3 for those keeping track at home). Numbers are not 100% reliable, because they are commonly misinterpreted. Methodologies are frequently misapplied, complete faith is often placed in the pov of a non-marketing employee and all too common is the sourcing of a number without appropriate context. When I first became and account planner, my boss at the time warned, "a number without the appropriate context is a dangerous thing." Over the course of time I would quickly understand why this was all too true. I observed clients making decisions based on data without truly understanding what the data was telling them. They assumed because the number for one cell was higher than another, then that cell must contain a stronger response. Little/to know concern was paid to statistical significance.
Statistical significance is a term that very few in our business understand yet its a foundational element in basic quantitative interpretation. It ultimately takes into account the size of a sample and the degree of variance required for a number to be statistically different from another. Clients were choosing one campaign over another because they interpreted it as better performing according to the data when in reality this was not necessarily the case. This is almost forgivable in comparison to projecting the response of 8-10 people in a focus group to a national level. Believe it or not, I've seen this too...the idea that if 6 out of 8 said one thing then 75% of the real target must feel the same way...so the client chooses the campaign that 6 out of 8 like versus the campaign that 5 out of 8 liked.
If a marketer does not understand what a number truly represents, how can they rely on a number to aid in decisions let alone serve as a decision making variable of significant influence?
Monday, October 30, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Dawn of the "Era of Accountability"
This entry is intended to identify the confluence of influences that came together at the turn of the millennium forever altering the advertising and marketing worlds.
The infamous Wannemaker quote suggests half of advertising works and half doesn't with a fair degree of humor found in the suggestion that in finding which half works advertisers will ultimately uncover a holy grail that provides salvation to their efforts. The quote has stood for a long time, but its relevance has never been greater than it is today. Brand health monitors, copytesting, statistical correlations, clickthrough and conversion rates - terminology all too familiar to the modern marketer. And with what common goal? To demonstrate the impact of advertising...welcome to "Era of Accountability."
Where to start? A Personal Watermark
Back in 1998-99, I was working as a media planner at Tierney Communications (formerly Tierney & Partners), a dime a dozen shop by New York City standards, but the big fish in the small pond of Philadelphia. The agency had just won the global business for Deloitte Consulting and being that unbundling had yet separate media from the creative process, I was the benefactor of being in the right place at the right time. I would even go so far as to say I was "fortunate," with many a fine meal and countless sporting events placed in my grasp (o fond farewell to ye old advertising world.)
During this time at Tierney, I remember a team of agency seniors recounting their observations from the annual AAAA's conference. The unanimous theme was around the idea of "accountability." This word was something I felt to be implied on a personal level (I tend to be a Type A personality so personal accountability to my job is typically a box I can check), but the context in which the word was being used in the recap of the AAAA's conference was not something I was very familiar with. What was more unsettling was this new application of the word appeared foreign to everyone, including the senior teams.
Accountability was being referenced in the context of a return on the client's investment. The ability to demonstrate exactly this being openly embraced by the advertising community as an opportunity to gain advantage in pursuing new business, to convince client's to spend more behind their business and to ultimately gain a greater degree of credibility among investors and shareholders. How this would be accomplished was not totally clear, but what was clear was the want of client's and agencies to find new and better ways to demonstrate greater accountability for the business.
A New Way: Online emerges as a viable medium
At this same time I was catching 76ers playoff games, I was also spending a larger and larger amount of time at work carving out space and rationale for online in our clients media plans. As I moved to San Francisco I found that search keywords, email blasts and targeted websites were the flavor of the moment here as well. Whereas the medium was still rapidly evolving, it had caught on among the marketing masses as a viable form to reach an audience with the client's message.
Furthermore, because of the technology upon which the internet was based, there was an added benefit that online could offer that no other medium could provide (at least not with the same degree of complexity)...that being response tracking. DART and Atlas tagging systems enabled clients and agencies to track their ads by site and by creative across a series of variables including total impressions, clicks, clickthrough and click-through-rate. Linking these systems to ecommerce pages on the clients website provided further understanding with regard to advertising's impact on sale. In addition to the clickthrough rate, conversions, conversion rate and ROI also became common nomenclature.
The results of this enhanced degree of data availability were many.
1) Optimization. With data reported on the fly, client's and agencies now had the assets that could help make decisions on the fly. Ads would no longer run until production dollars could be found to produce new work. Rather, weighting of messages and creative by placement would be revised on a seemingly ongoing basis based on what the data showed. This was the first step down a very slippery slope, promoting the power of the numbers to the forefront of the decision-making process (we'll come back to this in a couple weeks.)
2) A new department. Advertising and marketing orgs were suddenly very interested in individuals with statistical strengths. Director of Analytics and statistician type titles becoming commonplace, with the ability of these individuals to demand salary unrivaled outside of creative departments. The data wonks were now at the center of the decision making process.
3) Fear & uncertainty for some. Traditional advertisers became nervous...NBC could tell you how many TV's were tuned in to a commercial with a fair degree of accuracy, but they couldn't tell you if someone had left the room to grab a beer while the commercial was playing. Clickthroughs were confirmation not only that someone was seeing your add, it was also confirmation that they were interested in what you had to say.
4) Greed for others. Online media companies were bullish. Yahoo!, AOL, Doubleclick, CNET and a whole slew of other companies watched their stock prices rocket skyward. At one point over 90% of Yahoo!'s revenue was reported from advertising dollars...a dangerously high level as the following years would prove, but indicative of the perceptions that increased data reporting inherently provided a greater degree of knowledge and understanding; something they could offer on a scale matched by few.
5) Ability. Ultimately, with the want already established, marketers and advertisers now had the ability to demonstrate accountability on a level unparalleled in the history of the business.
So with the want and ability established, what else could fuel demand for accountability?
What was that popping noise? The bubble bursts in 2001
I remember landing in San Francisco in the Summer of 2000, a market at the center of the tech-bubble. 23 year olds were driving Porshe's, dinner reservations to the finest restaurants required at least 2-3 months notice...the smell of money was in the air and it was all being driven by the emergence of the internet.
At its height, the tech boom fueled an ad economy that could not spend client dollars fast enough. Aggressive (and irreverent) advertisers launched TV commercials featuring hamsters being shot out of a cannon. New businesses sought ad solutions before they had even figured out their business plan. And if caution and common sense created a moment of hesitation to take on such a business at your agency, another agency would certainly be willing for it is greed that fuels capitalism (or so Adam Smith says) and there was simply too much green going around to ignore.
For me CDNow was the canary in the coal mine. They were the first tech-bubble company that I remember failing to get their second round of funding from the VC's. The tip of the ice berg in a radical market correction that was matched only by the overzealous and unrestrained investing in technology that created the now infamous tech-bubble in the first place.
As exciting and ostentatious as the 1998-2000 period was, what followed from 2001-2003 was as sobering a time as I can recall or hope to imagine. To remind everyone how far and fast things fell:
-In the summer of 2000 the Nasdaq topped 6000.
-Last week the Nasdaq achieved a 4 year high topping 2300.
Need say no more...
...what was left was a shaken industry full of fear. The bi-product of the the bubble burst resulting in a sea change of epic proportions the majority of which continue to influence the advertising and marketing decisions we make today:
1) Our credibility as an industry was gone in the blink of an eye. With all the dollars spent on marketing and advertising a high degree of blame was being placed on client marketers and their agencies for the misfortunes of the start-ups gone belly-up and the blue chips left feeling blue.
2) Marketing dollars disappeared. Asking for an advertising budget was like a 16 year old asking for money from his parents after maxing out one of their credit cards.
3) Corporate governance created extensive (and seemingly excessive) rules for accounting practices. Dollars could no longer easily flow from one quarter to the next if they had not been spent. The Sarbanes-Oxley fall-out would make its mark on our business (as your CFO if you don't believe me.)
4) Judgment was (and is) quickly cast. The agency at which I was working had a staff of 180 reduced to less than 50 in a little over 6 months. This was largely a rightsizing effort, but consider CMO's now enjoy an average tenure of 18 months.
5) Data driven decision making processes were implemented. As the need to demonstrate accountability mounted, data was captured from a growing number of sources: Brand Tracking Monitors, in-market reporting tools, copytesting for creative. The want and need for accountability was not just for online activities, it was for any dollar spent on marketing and advertising. And as this need for accountability and the number sources from which data was avaiable grew, numbers themselves became more than just an asset, they became the ultimately veto tool - marginalizing the value of expertise and personal judgment in doing so.
So here we find ourselves, with the want, the ability and need to demonstrate accountability. A better, more efficient marketing world? Maybe. Clearly there are immediate benefactors (see Millward Brown growth in the last decade), but as for the impact of marketing efforts on the customer...only time will tell us for certain.
The infamous Wannemaker quote suggests half of advertising works and half doesn't with a fair degree of humor found in the suggestion that in finding which half works advertisers will ultimately uncover a holy grail that provides salvation to their efforts. The quote has stood for a long time, but its relevance has never been greater than it is today. Brand health monitors, copytesting, statistical correlations, clickthrough and conversion rates - terminology all too familiar to the modern marketer. And with what common goal? To demonstrate the impact of advertising...welcome to "Era of Accountability."
Where to start? A Personal Watermark
Back in 1998-99, I was working as a media planner at Tierney Communications (formerly Tierney & Partners), a dime a dozen shop by New York City standards, but the big fish in the small pond of Philadelphia. The agency had just won the global business for Deloitte Consulting and being that unbundling had yet separate media from the creative process, I was the benefactor of being in the right place at the right time. I would even go so far as to say I was "fortunate," with many a fine meal and countless sporting events placed in my grasp (o fond farewell to ye old advertising world.)
During this time at Tierney, I remember a team of agency seniors recounting their observations from the annual AAAA's conference. The unanimous theme was around the idea of "accountability." This word was something I felt to be implied on a personal level (I tend to be a Type A personality so personal accountability to my job is typically a box I can check), but the context in which the word was being used in the recap of the AAAA's conference was not something I was very familiar with. What was more unsettling was this new application of the word appeared foreign to everyone, including the senior teams.
Accountability was being referenced in the context of a return on the client's investment. The ability to demonstrate exactly this being openly embraced by the advertising community as an opportunity to gain advantage in pursuing new business, to convince client's to spend more behind their business and to ultimately gain a greater degree of credibility among investors and shareholders. How this would be accomplished was not totally clear, but what was clear was the want of client's and agencies to find new and better ways to demonstrate greater accountability for the business.
A New Way: Online emerges as a viable medium
At this same time I was catching 76ers playoff games, I was also spending a larger and larger amount of time at work carving out space and rationale for online in our clients media plans. As I moved to San Francisco I found that search keywords, email blasts and targeted websites were the flavor of the moment here as well. Whereas the medium was still rapidly evolving, it had caught on among the marketing masses as a viable form to reach an audience with the client's message.
Furthermore, because of the technology upon which the internet was based, there was an added benefit that online could offer that no other medium could provide (at least not with the same degree of complexity)...that being response tracking. DART and Atlas tagging systems enabled clients and agencies to track their ads by site and by creative across a series of variables including total impressions, clicks, clickthrough and click-through-rate. Linking these systems to ecommerce pages on the clients website provided further understanding with regard to advertising's impact on sale. In addition to the clickthrough rate, conversions, conversion rate and ROI also became common nomenclature.
The results of this enhanced degree of data availability were many.
1) Optimization. With data reported on the fly, client's and agencies now had the assets that could help make decisions on the fly. Ads would no longer run until production dollars could be found to produce new work. Rather, weighting of messages and creative by placement would be revised on a seemingly ongoing basis based on what the data showed. This was the first step down a very slippery slope, promoting the power of the numbers to the forefront of the decision-making process (we'll come back to this in a couple weeks.)
2) A new department. Advertising and marketing orgs were suddenly very interested in individuals with statistical strengths. Director of Analytics and statistician type titles becoming commonplace, with the ability of these individuals to demand salary unrivaled outside of creative departments. The data wonks were now at the center of the decision making process.
3) Fear & uncertainty for some. Traditional advertisers became nervous...NBC could tell you how many TV's were tuned in to a commercial with a fair degree of accuracy, but they couldn't tell you if someone had left the room to grab a beer while the commercial was playing. Clickthroughs were confirmation not only that someone was seeing your add, it was also confirmation that they were interested in what you had to say.
4) Greed for others. Online media companies were bullish. Yahoo!, AOL, Doubleclick, CNET and a whole slew of other companies watched their stock prices rocket skyward. At one point over 90% of Yahoo!'s revenue was reported from advertising dollars...a dangerously high level as the following years would prove, but indicative of the perceptions that increased data reporting inherently provided a greater degree of knowledge and understanding; something they could offer on a scale matched by few.
5) Ability. Ultimately, with the want already established, marketers and advertisers now had the ability to demonstrate accountability on a level unparalleled in the history of the business.
So with the want and ability established, what else could fuel demand for accountability?
What was that popping noise? The bubble bursts in 2001
I remember landing in San Francisco in the Summer of 2000, a market at the center of the tech-bubble. 23 year olds were driving Porshe's, dinner reservations to the finest restaurants required at least 2-3 months notice...the smell of money was in the air and it was all being driven by the emergence of the internet.
At its height, the tech boom fueled an ad economy that could not spend client dollars fast enough. Aggressive (and irreverent) advertisers launched TV commercials featuring hamsters being shot out of a cannon. New businesses sought ad solutions before they had even figured out their business plan. And if caution and common sense created a moment of hesitation to take on such a business at your agency, another agency would certainly be willing for it is greed that fuels capitalism (or so Adam Smith says) and there was simply too much green going around to ignore.
For me CDNow was the canary in the coal mine. They were the first tech-bubble company that I remember failing to get their second round of funding from the VC's. The tip of the ice berg in a radical market correction that was matched only by the overzealous and unrestrained investing in technology that created the now infamous tech-bubble in the first place.
As exciting and ostentatious as the 1998-2000 period was, what followed from 2001-2003 was as sobering a time as I can recall or hope to imagine. To remind everyone how far and fast things fell:
-In the summer of 2000 the Nasdaq topped 6000.
-Last week the Nasdaq achieved a 4 year high topping 2300.
Need say no more...
...what was left was a shaken industry full of fear. The bi-product of the the bubble burst resulting in a sea change of epic proportions the majority of which continue to influence the advertising and marketing decisions we make today:
1) Our credibility as an industry was gone in the blink of an eye. With all the dollars spent on marketing and advertising a high degree of blame was being placed on client marketers and their agencies for the misfortunes of the start-ups gone belly-up and the blue chips left feeling blue.
2) Marketing dollars disappeared. Asking for an advertising budget was like a 16 year old asking for money from his parents after maxing out one of their credit cards.
3) Corporate governance created extensive (and seemingly excessive) rules for accounting practices. Dollars could no longer easily flow from one quarter to the next if they had not been spent. The Sarbanes-Oxley fall-out would make its mark on our business (as your CFO if you don't believe me.)
4) Judgment was (and is) quickly cast. The agency at which I was working had a staff of 180 reduced to less than 50 in a little over 6 months. This was largely a rightsizing effort, but consider CMO's now enjoy an average tenure of 18 months.
5) Data driven decision making processes were implemented. As the need to demonstrate accountability mounted, data was captured from a growing number of sources: Brand Tracking Monitors, in-market reporting tools, copytesting for creative. The want and need for accountability was not just for online activities, it was for any dollar spent on marketing and advertising. And as this need for accountability and the number sources from which data was avaiable grew, numbers themselves became more than just an asset, they became the ultimately veto tool - marginalizing the value of expertise and personal judgment in doing so.
So here we find ourselves, with the want, the ability and need to demonstrate accountability. A better, more efficient marketing world? Maybe. Clearly there are immediate benefactors (see Millward Brown growth in the last decade), but as for the impact of marketing efforts on the customer...only time will tell us for certain.
Monday, October 02, 2006
The Art of Achieving Break-Through: Part 2
My initial post on the subject of breakthrough was a bit abstract, presenting a contrarian ideal without much substance. My hope in part 2 is to start providing substance and texture around the idea that less may be more when it comes to advertising efforts with actionable direction also forthcoming for those that choose to subscribe to the position.
Again, the basic premise is that marketers are competing for a fixed allotment of brain capacity termed "share of mind" and with new technologies enabling more messages to reach consumers through more channels than ever before, that competition is increasing significantly. So by increasing marketing efforts, we (marketers) actually create more clutter through which we must breakthrough.
Consider the number of messages seen by generations in the 50's and 60's versus those in this day and age. TV viewership has grown, the interactive space has evolved and everything from pizza boxes to urinal pucks can be seen carrying a logo or message.
Further increasing the challenge for marketers is a growing sense of skepticism with regard to advertising common among mass audiences particularly younger, coastal types. Trust in the institution has taken a major beating in an era where gov't, church and corporate scandal riddle the headlines. Conspiracy theories are commonly woven into the fabric of culture serving as the basis for countless movies and TV shows. I can spend all day on this one, but we'll save that for another blog entry. Bottom line: Because you (brand) say so, doesn't make it true anymore.
So having laid out the challenges, the logical question is what are the solutions? Am I really suggesting marketers cut back their budgets? That a decrease in SOV or "presence" will actually help engage consumers and create trust in a greater and more effective manner...
...well, to a degree, yes. In fact, I think starting there is a good place. We throw the phrase around internally that good advertisers have the ability to "box above their weight." They compete for share of decision within a category despite a significantly inferior share of voice. T-Mobile is a great example. Mini, Target, Apple all come to mind as well. Without question there are operational efficiencies that likely play a role in the success of these brands, but who's to say the GM's of the world could not refine their marketing practices to enable their advertising to perform more efficiently?
In the boxing world, a heavyweight has to lose weight to fight at a lower weight class. In doing so they become more nimble, more agile and increase their stamina and durability. They may lose some of their power, but a flurry of jabs is often just as effective as an upper-cut. In the world of marketers, there is no knock-out punch. The truth is most of us are in a fight that requires the ability to throw jabs repeatedly and with precision. And those brands that remain nimble and agile in marketing practice while demonstrating stamina and durability are those that are positioned to succeed.
Step 1
Sports analogies aside, the first step I would suggest to enhancing breakthrough (if you are a heavyweight) is to cut your budgets in half (T-Mobile, Mini, Apple and Target are excused from this step). I know this defies all conventional wisdom, but I think it is the first step towards more efficient marketing practices (it'll drive immediate ROI figures up if nothing else.)
Step 2
Don't allocate dollars towards media such as TV because its what was done before. Its the fastest and easiest way to spend the largest amount of your marketing budget, but this practice is short-sighted. I'm not saying to stop using TV, it is still an extremely viable medium, just don't use past usage as a rationale. And not to pick on TV, this applies to all avenues of communication, even online. Why? For starters, its just lazy, but furthermore, the marketing world has changed more significantly in the last 3 years than it did in the previous 50. Its a different game, we all need to learn to play it differently. Don't rely on what was known or accepted as convention...conventions are changing and there's not a research company in the world that can predict where its going (only where its been, which is why I find "norms" such a nuisance).
Step 3
Stop talking at your target. So many advertisers behave like what they have to say is the answer for world peace. Let's be clear, its highly unlikely what we are saying is as important to our audience as it is to us. We live in the world of our products and services. Its easy fool ourselves into thinking our customers care as much as we do. No matter how compelling the offer might be, they don't (see Chrysler employee discount program year 2 performance). Recognize this and you'll be starting from a better place. Message to your audience like you are talking to a friend and you'll be in an even better one.
Step 4
Find ways to allow your target to engage on their own terms. This is the one thing (if anything) readers should take away from this blog entry. We are an increasingly independent society and as marketers this needs to be recognized. Tools such as the remote control, the mouse and Tivo and vehicles such as youtube and myspace have enabled audiences to take control of the content they absorb and to some degree given the ability to create content. Its no longer about waiting around for ABC or NBC to tell you what you will see. Consumers are more empowered then ever when it comes to choosing content, a trend that will only continue with greater veracity. Older audiences are being conditioned to this expectation and younger audiences demand it so marketers might as well embrace it. The online space appears to be the best medium to currently accommodate this need, but there may be alternatives. Interactive and online are not necessarily synonymous. It will be interesting to see where the convergence era takes us. Regardless, I firmly believe those marketers that engage their target in a non-threatening and empowering fashion will succeed long-term.
Step 5
Speaking of the long-term, keep it in mind, extend your elbows, and treat your marketing efforts accordingly. I've written in another entry that the days of the "1984" spot are long gone. With media fragmentation, its become increasingly difficult for marketers to reach (and favorably impact) a large audience segment in a short period of time. So don't expect a new spot or campaign to save the day...not right away. It takes time for campaigns to move the needle. Give them the time and investment they need to do so.
Again, the basic premise is that marketers are competing for a fixed allotment of brain capacity termed "share of mind" and with new technologies enabling more messages to reach consumers through more channels than ever before, that competition is increasing significantly. So by increasing marketing efforts, we (marketers) actually create more clutter through which we must breakthrough.
Consider the number of messages seen by generations in the 50's and 60's versus those in this day and age. TV viewership has grown, the interactive space has evolved and everything from pizza boxes to urinal pucks can be seen carrying a logo or message.
Further increasing the challenge for marketers is a growing sense of skepticism with regard to advertising common among mass audiences particularly younger, coastal types. Trust in the institution has taken a major beating in an era where gov't, church and corporate scandal riddle the headlines. Conspiracy theories are commonly woven into the fabric of culture serving as the basis for countless movies and TV shows. I can spend all day on this one, but we'll save that for another blog entry. Bottom line: Because you (brand) say so, doesn't make it true anymore.
So having laid out the challenges, the logical question is what are the solutions? Am I really suggesting marketers cut back their budgets? That a decrease in SOV or "presence" will actually help engage consumers and create trust in a greater and more effective manner...
...well, to a degree, yes. In fact, I think starting there is a good place. We throw the phrase around internally that good advertisers have the ability to "box above their weight." They compete for share of decision within a category despite a significantly inferior share of voice. T-Mobile is a great example. Mini, Target, Apple all come to mind as well. Without question there are operational efficiencies that likely play a role in the success of these brands, but who's to say the GM's of the world could not refine their marketing practices to enable their advertising to perform more efficiently?
In the boxing world, a heavyweight has to lose weight to fight at a lower weight class. In doing so they become more nimble, more agile and increase their stamina and durability. They may lose some of their power, but a flurry of jabs is often just as effective as an upper-cut. In the world of marketers, there is no knock-out punch. The truth is most of us are in a fight that requires the ability to throw jabs repeatedly and with precision. And those brands that remain nimble and agile in marketing practice while demonstrating stamina and durability are those that are positioned to succeed.
Step 1
Sports analogies aside, the first step I would suggest to enhancing breakthrough (if you are a heavyweight) is to cut your budgets in half (T-Mobile, Mini, Apple and Target are excused from this step). I know this defies all conventional wisdom, but I think it is the first step towards more efficient marketing practices (it'll drive immediate ROI figures up if nothing else.)
Step 2
Don't allocate dollars towards media such as TV because its what was done before. Its the fastest and easiest way to spend the largest amount of your marketing budget, but this practice is short-sighted. I'm not saying to stop using TV, it is still an extremely viable medium, just don't use past usage as a rationale. And not to pick on TV, this applies to all avenues of communication, even online. Why? For starters, its just lazy, but furthermore, the marketing world has changed more significantly in the last 3 years than it did in the previous 50. Its a different game, we all need to learn to play it differently. Don't rely on what was known or accepted as convention...conventions are changing and there's not a research company in the world that can predict where its going (only where its been, which is why I find "norms" such a nuisance).
Step 3
Stop talking at your target. So many advertisers behave like what they have to say is the answer for world peace. Let's be clear, its highly unlikely what we are saying is as important to our audience as it is to us. We live in the world of our products and services. Its easy fool ourselves into thinking our customers care as much as we do. No matter how compelling the offer might be, they don't (see Chrysler employee discount program year 2 performance). Recognize this and you'll be starting from a better place. Message to your audience like you are talking to a friend and you'll be in an even better one.
Step 4
Find ways to allow your target to engage on their own terms. This is the one thing (if anything) readers should take away from this blog entry. We are an increasingly independent society and as marketers this needs to be recognized. Tools such as the remote control, the mouse and Tivo and vehicles such as youtube and myspace have enabled audiences to take control of the content they absorb and to some degree given the ability to create content. Its no longer about waiting around for ABC or NBC to tell you what you will see. Consumers are more empowered then ever when it comes to choosing content, a trend that will only continue with greater veracity. Older audiences are being conditioned to this expectation and younger audiences demand it so marketers might as well embrace it. The online space appears to be the best medium to currently accommodate this need, but there may be alternatives. Interactive and online are not necessarily synonymous. It will be interesting to see where the convergence era takes us. Regardless, I firmly believe those marketers that engage their target in a non-threatening and empowering fashion will succeed long-term.
Step 5
Speaking of the long-term, keep it in mind, extend your elbows, and treat your marketing efforts accordingly. I've written in another entry that the days of the "1984" spot are long gone. With media fragmentation, its become increasingly difficult for marketers to reach (and favorably impact) a large audience segment in a short period of time. So don't expect a new spot or campaign to save the day...not right away. It takes time for campaigns to move the needle. Give them the time and investment they need to do so.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Campaign Traction Requires Time and Patience
The idea that less is more is the tie that largely binds most of the content I have produced in this blog and is truly at the heart of my idea that there is a better way for companies to think about their marketing practices.
The issue I want to discuss today is related to this theme in more of an abstract fashion than previous entries, but it's relevance to marketers is surely equal. It covers the necessary time in market needed for a campaign to succeed.
Before tackling specifics, I want to propose some common ground...
One: I believe all new campaigns generally deliver a few core functions:
1) They introduce a new product or service (or new company news of some kind)
2) They create a new vessel through which desired messaging can be introduced to customers
3) They provide a rallying point for vested parties
You can certainly argue that a new campaign has value beyond the aforementioned (or in some cases less), but to overtly simplify in an effort to keep on topic, I hope that all can find some common ground with the functions proposed.
Two: Pressure to demonstrate the success of new campaigns is significant (and gaining):
Whereas the scale of investment and number of stakeholders in the form of employees and investors generally increases with company size, small companies share a similar vested interest in the success of their marketing efforts. With this in mind it seems fair to say the introduction of a new campaign or marketing intiative generally carries a high degree of interest within any organization. With this interest comes the inherent pressure to demonstrate success; this pressure, gaining significantly in the "era of accountability" (the post-2001 period following the dot-com bubble burst: another topic I hope to tackle, but we'll save that one for another day).
Three: Success must be demonstrated in a timely manner:
When it comes to business time is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity. 13 week cycles drive processes for publicly traded companies. 9/5 is a term for previous generations, not the modern worker. Countless references link an organization's long-term potential to their ability to make smart decisions and act upon them quickly. Time is literally becoming more valueable than money.
So with robust objectives and pressures to deliver in a timely fashion mounting, those tasked with creating and delivering said campaign often feel their blood pressure rise as campaign launch dates approach. My advice to these parties is quite simple. Make yourself comfortable and wait (at least for a little bit).
I wrote in an earlier blog that marketers are competing for share of mind, the 10% (give or take) of the human brain dedicated to cognitive thought and choice. What further adds to the challenge for marketers is the reality that its getting harder to effectively reach large portions of a preferred audience in a timely manner. By effective reach, I mean the ability to reach and create a desired perception that in turn creates a desired behavior.
With all due respect to creatives around the world, I would suggest the ability to create effective reach in a manner consistent with the above definiton via a single ad (ala "1984" for Apple) is no longer doable. This has nothing do to with the creative product, rather the media consumption behavior and customer mindset that has resulted from the shift towards consumer controlled content. This shift accompanying prevalent advances in technology and the fragmentation of media that has been seen over the last 20 years. TV Viewership is actually up in the last 20 years, but the average rating for top rated shows has declined significantly (see Cosby ratings vs. American Idol or Superbowl 1986 vs. Superbowl 2005). The result, a decline in the ability to create effective reach as quickly.
Are there other ways to reach audiences than TV; the internet, viral, etc.? Absolutely. In fact, there are more ways for marketers to deliver their message than ever before, but I use TV as an example because in my observations of brand tracking monitors and product/service sales data, nothing drives sentiments and behavior as quickly. Furthermore, with TV's ability to do so (again, I caveat "quickly") marketers can expect a new campaign to take some time to seed despite increasing pressures to do so otherwise.
So how long? My educated guess is that any new campaign will require a minimum of 3 months to gain traction and in some cases longer. This estimate based on a handful of clients across a handful of categories that I have monitored in the last 3 years. From Telecom and Tech to Auto Inurance and Life Insurance; the average amount of time for a campaign to hit full stride is 14-18 weeks.
Why so long? Effective reach requires a campaign go through multiple stages (assuming it works):
1) Create Breakthrough
2) Establish Brand Association
3) Convey Messaging Association
4) Create Desired Perceptions
5) Create Desired Behavior
Bottom line: this process does not happen overnight.
Can the timetable be shortened with a greater investment? Probably not, but without a substantial investment in a new campaign, you can expect the timetable to lengthen. I've watched two major campaign launches with media dollars reaching into the hundreds of millions in the last two years and in each case, it took 3 months simply to establish brand association with their new campaign.
Is there risk in waiting 3 months to see if a campaign is working? Absolutely
Is there greater risk in making decisions prior to giving a campaign enough time to succeed? Yes.
How is this possible? Campaigns cost money and campaigns take time to seed no matter how good they might be. If the plug is pulled without giving a campaign adequate time (and investment) to seed, 1) you can kiss your marketing investment for that campaign goodbye 2) you can expect the new campaign to be a step backward in terms of breakthrough, brand association, messaging association, sentiments and action.
For example: On one occassion I watched clients pull the plug on two campaigns over a 5 month period (less than 3 months in each case) because "the new campaigns were not hitting benchmark norms". What was not addressed in the decision making to pull the plug in both cases was the fact benchmarks were established by previous campaigns that were in market for years. Clients compared a new campaign to benchmarks without giving thought to the amount of time they might need in market to achieve benchmark levels.
When reviewing projected growth of the two initial campaigns after they were cancelled it was determined that both campaigns were actually on pace to reach benchmarks at the 4 month window. Unfortunately by this point a third campaign was created and in-market. It achieved benchmark norms after 4 months (having the benefit of time in market only because production dollars for the year were exhaused). This campaign was supported for the better part of a year and was generally perceived as a success (even though it performed no better than the previous two efforts in initial months after launch).
The rub: we spent the better part of 10 months hovering below benchmark norms, when in hindsight it appears we only needed to do so for 4. We undermined our own marketing effectiveness for half a year by rushing to pass judgement on the success of new campaigns, the cost of which can be quantified by the hundreds of millions that were spent in media over this time period and the 3x production budget needed to launch an "effective campaign."
The lesson: Recognizing the pressures to demonstrate success of new campaigns in a timely manner are mounting, you can't make a marketing cycle fit to a financial cycle (i.e. 13 weeks). Marketers, be sure to judge your campaign success fairly, recognizing time in market is as crucial a variable to success as anything.
The issue I want to discuss today is related to this theme in more of an abstract fashion than previous entries, but it's relevance to marketers is surely equal. It covers the necessary time in market needed for a campaign to succeed.
Before tackling specifics, I want to propose some common ground...
One: I believe all new campaigns generally deliver a few core functions:
1) They introduce a new product or service (or new company news of some kind)
2) They create a new vessel through which desired messaging can be introduced to customers
3) They provide a rallying point for vested parties
You can certainly argue that a new campaign has value beyond the aforementioned (or in some cases less), but to overtly simplify in an effort to keep on topic, I hope that all can find some common ground with the functions proposed.
Two: Pressure to demonstrate the success of new campaigns is significant (and gaining):
Whereas the scale of investment and number of stakeholders in the form of employees and investors generally increases with company size, small companies share a similar vested interest in the success of their marketing efforts. With this in mind it seems fair to say the introduction of a new campaign or marketing intiative generally carries a high degree of interest within any organization. With this interest comes the inherent pressure to demonstrate success; this pressure, gaining significantly in the "era of accountability" (the post-2001 period following the dot-com bubble burst: another topic I hope to tackle, but we'll save that one for another day).
Three: Success must be demonstrated in a timely manner:
When it comes to business time is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity. 13 week cycles drive processes for publicly traded companies. 9/5 is a term for previous generations, not the modern worker. Countless references link an organization's long-term potential to their ability to make smart decisions and act upon them quickly. Time is literally becoming more valueable than money.
So with robust objectives and pressures to deliver in a timely fashion mounting, those tasked with creating and delivering said campaign often feel their blood pressure rise as campaign launch dates approach. My advice to these parties is quite simple. Make yourself comfortable and wait (at least for a little bit).
I wrote in an earlier blog that marketers are competing for share of mind, the 10% (give or take) of the human brain dedicated to cognitive thought and choice. What further adds to the challenge for marketers is the reality that its getting harder to effectively reach large portions of a preferred audience in a timely manner. By effective reach, I mean the ability to reach and create a desired perception that in turn creates a desired behavior.
With all due respect to creatives around the world, I would suggest the ability to create effective reach in a manner consistent with the above definiton via a single ad (ala "1984" for Apple) is no longer doable. This has nothing do to with the creative product, rather the media consumption behavior and customer mindset that has resulted from the shift towards consumer controlled content. This shift accompanying prevalent advances in technology and the fragmentation of media that has been seen over the last 20 years. TV Viewership is actually up in the last 20 years, but the average rating for top rated shows has declined significantly (see Cosby ratings vs. American Idol or Superbowl 1986 vs. Superbowl 2005). The result, a decline in the ability to create effective reach as quickly.
Are there other ways to reach audiences than TV; the internet, viral, etc.? Absolutely. In fact, there are more ways for marketers to deliver their message than ever before, but I use TV as an example because in my observations of brand tracking monitors and product/service sales data, nothing drives sentiments and behavior as quickly. Furthermore, with TV's ability to do so (again, I caveat "quickly") marketers can expect a new campaign to take some time to seed despite increasing pressures to do so otherwise.
So how long? My educated guess is that any new campaign will require a minimum of 3 months to gain traction and in some cases longer. This estimate based on a handful of clients across a handful of categories that I have monitored in the last 3 years. From Telecom and Tech to Auto Inurance and Life Insurance; the average amount of time for a campaign to hit full stride is 14-18 weeks.
Why so long? Effective reach requires a campaign go through multiple stages (assuming it works):
1) Create Breakthrough
2) Establish Brand Association
3) Convey Messaging Association
4) Create Desired Perceptions
5) Create Desired Behavior
Bottom line: this process does not happen overnight.
Can the timetable be shortened with a greater investment? Probably not, but without a substantial investment in a new campaign, you can expect the timetable to lengthen. I've watched two major campaign launches with media dollars reaching into the hundreds of millions in the last two years and in each case, it took 3 months simply to establish brand association with their new campaign.
Is there risk in waiting 3 months to see if a campaign is working? Absolutely
Is there greater risk in making decisions prior to giving a campaign enough time to succeed? Yes.
How is this possible? Campaigns cost money and campaigns take time to seed no matter how good they might be. If the plug is pulled without giving a campaign adequate time (and investment) to seed, 1) you can kiss your marketing investment for that campaign goodbye 2) you can expect the new campaign to be a step backward in terms of breakthrough, brand association, messaging association, sentiments and action.
For example: On one occassion I watched clients pull the plug on two campaigns over a 5 month period (less than 3 months in each case) because "the new campaigns were not hitting benchmark norms". What was not addressed in the decision making to pull the plug in both cases was the fact benchmarks were established by previous campaigns that were in market for years. Clients compared a new campaign to benchmarks without giving thought to the amount of time they might need in market to achieve benchmark levels.
When reviewing projected growth of the two initial campaigns after they were cancelled it was determined that both campaigns were actually on pace to reach benchmarks at the 4 month window. Unfortunately by this point a third campaign was created and in-market. It achieved benchmark norms after 4 months (having the benefit of time in market only because production dollars for the year were exhaused). This campaign was supported for the better part of a year and was generally perceived as a success (even though it performed no better than the previous two efforts in initial months after launch).
The rub: we spent the better part of 10 months hovering below benchmark norms, when in hindsight it appears we only needed to do so for 4. We undermined our own marketing effectiveness for half a year by rushing to pass judgement on the success of new campaigns, the cost of which can be quantified by the hundreds of millions that were spent in media over this time period and the 3x production budget needed to launch an "effective campaign."
The lesson: Recognizing the pressures to demonstrate success of new campaigns in a timely manner are mounting, you can't make a marketing cycle fit to a financial cycle (i.e. 13 weeks). Marketers, be sure to judge your campaign success fairly, recognizing time in market is as crucial a variable to success as anything.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Fewer Messages in a communication work best!
About a year and a half ago, the planning team at Hal Riney of which I am a part, suggested through quantifiable methodology (done with an independent third-party research vendor) that not only does the law of diminishing returns apply to the number of messages contained in an ad, but the existence of secondary messages creates a diminishing impact on those that preceed it.
In other words, (in theory) if say Coke were to create an uber-campaign carrying 10 of its most memorable slogans; "Coke is it", "Can't beat the real thing", "Always Coca-Cola", "Enjoy", etc. and each of these slogans were placed in a single ad, the recall of slogan 2 would be less than that of 1, the recall of slogan 3 would be less than that of 2 and through transitive theory one can deduce 3 less than 1. And so on with each additional messge. Nothing beyond intuitive, but valid nonetheless. What is also interesting is the effect consecutive messages would have on the recall of those preceeding it. Message 1 recall would decline further as messages 2-10 were added in subsequent order (the delta of diminished recall would increase as you added more messages).
The irony is that as the ability to reach mass audience through single media channels declines (see the decline of the average network TV rating), marketers are trying to put more content in single executions to make up the difference. And, in doing so they inherently undermine the effectiveness of their message recall.
The bottom line for marketers is that in trying to convey more of a story in an ad you are likely to convey less. Don't do it! Avoid the temptation to tell the whole story at once and treat your ads a part of a greater whole. You don't score a touchdown on every play, and most good coach's don't try to...consider the parallels.
In other words, (in theory) if say Coke were to create an uber-campaign carrying 10 of its most memorable slogans; "Coke is it", "Can't beat the real thing", "Always Coca-Cola", "Enjoy", etc. and each of these slogans were placed in a single ad, the recall of slogan 2 would be less than that of 1, the recall of slogan 3 would be less than that of 2 and through transitive theory one can deduce 3 less than 1. And so on with each additional messge. Nothing beyond intuitive, but valid nonetheless. What is also interesting is the effect consecutive messages would have on the recall of those preceeding it. Message 1 recall would decline further as messages 2-10 were added in subsequent order (the delta of diminished recall would increase as you added more messages).
The irony is that as the ability to reach mass audience through single media channels declines (see the decline of the average network TV rating), marketers are trying to put more content in single executions to make up the difference. And, in doing so they inherently undermine the effectiveness of their message recall.
The bottom line for marketers is that in trying to convey more of a story in an ad you are likely to convey less. Don't do it! Avoid the temptation to tell the whole story at once and treat your ads a part of a greater whole. You don't score a touchdown on every play, and most good coach's don't try to...consider the parallels.
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Art of Achieving Break-Through: Part 1
It hit me a little while back; the revelation that marketers and advertisers are trapped in a viscous cycle of inefficiency that is fueled by variables of control as much as variables beyond control (those set in motion by external sources that result from the conditions of an evolving society.) We (marketers) see advancing technologies as vehicles that provide new channels to reach customers, but fail to realize that in doing so, we create a larger degree of clutter through which our communication must breakthrough. We often gauge the scale of their efforts on a "share of voice" within a given category or sector, but what we are really competing for is a fixed commodity aptly coined "share of mind", the 10% of the human brain (give or take) that is allotted towards cognitive choice...
...has anyone else considered that less may actually be more when trying to engage consumers?
...has anyone else considered that less may actually be more when trying to engage consumers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)